Forensic Assessment Cases

Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read Chapter 12 in the textbook and the required articles for this week. For this discussion you will take on the role of a psychologist assigned a case in which the client has a legal concern. For your initial post, select one of the three forensic case scenarios below and follow the instructions.

Forensic Scenario One: Mr. W (Attempting to Obtain Legal Guardianship Over an Elderly Parent): Attorney Mr. X referred Mr. W for an evaluation of his decision-making capacity. Mr. W’s children do not agree with the findings from a prior evaluation and have requested a second opinion. Review the

PSY640 Week Six Clinical Neuropsychological Report for Mr. W (Links to an external site.)

, and begin your post with a one-paragraph summary of the test data you deem most significant. Utilize assigned readings and any additional scholarly and/or peer-reviewed sources needed to develop a list of assessment instruments and evaluation procedures to administer to the client in addition to those used in the current evaluation. Justify your assessment choices by providing an evaluation of the ethical and professional practice standards and an analysis of the reliability and validity of the instruments. Note: It is common for there to be a delay between the time a test publisher updates a test and the time the textbook and other authors can update their information about the new version of the test. Be sure to do online research to make sure you are recommending the most current version of the test. If there is a newer version than the version discussed in the textbook or other readings, present information about the newest version.

Forensic Scenario Two, Mr. M (Not Guilty Plea): Your client, Mr. M., was referred by the court for an evaluation of his mental condition after his attorney entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf.

Review the Case Description: Mr. M—Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal Score Report (Links to an external site.)

, and begin your post with a one-paragraph summary of the test data you deem most significant. Based on the information provided, determine if retesting with the MMPI-3 is recommended at this time and explain your rationale. Utilize assigned readings and any additional scholarly and/or peer-reviewed sources needed to develop a list of assessment instruments and evaluation procedures in addition to the MMPI-2-RF and/or the MMPI-3 to administer to the client. Justify your assessment choices by providing an evaluation of the ethical and professional practice standards and an analysis of the reliability and validity of the instruments. Note: It is common for there to be a delay between the time a test publisher updates a test and the time the textbook and other authors can update their information about the new version of the test. Be sure to do online research to make sure you are recommending the most current version of the test. If there is a newer version than the version discussed in the textbook or other readings, present information about the newest version.

Forensic Scenario Three, Ms. X (Personal Injury Lawsuit): Ms. X was referred for a forensic neuropsychological evaluation in connection with a personal injury lawsuit she had filed. Review the

Case Description: Ms. X—Forensic, Neuropsychological Score Report, (Links to an external site.)

and begin your post with a one-paragraph summary of the test data you deem most significant. Based on the information provided, determine if retesting with the MMPI-3 is recommended at this time and explain your rationale. Utilize assigned readings and any additional scholarly and/or peer-reviewed sources needed to develop a list of assessment instruments and evaluation procedures in addition to the MMPI-2-RF and/or the MMPI-3 to administer to the client. Justify your assessment choices by providing an evaluation of the ethical and professional practice standards and an analysis of the reliability and validity of the instruments. Note: It is common for there to be a delay between the time a test publisher updates a test and the time the textbook and other authors can update their information about the new version of the test. Be sure to do online research to make sure you are recommending the most current version of the test. If there is a newer version than the version discussed in the textbook or other readings, present information about the newest version.

PSY640 Week Six Clinical Neuropsychological Report for Mr. W

CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY REPORT

Patient’s Name: Mr. W Date of Evaluation: 10/10/2014
Date of Birth: 10/02/24 Age: 90 Handedness: Right
Education: 6 years Occupation: City worker (retired)
Current Medications: Donepezil 5 mg/day, Simvastatin 40 mg/day, Levothyroxin 1.25 mg/day,
Losartan 50 mg/day, Warfarin 3 mg/day, Advair Inhaler, Ventolin Inhaler, Alendroate Sodium 35
mg/week, Vitamins B12 and D3

Evaluation Completed by: Dr. K., Ph.D.
Evaluation Time: One hour diagnostic interview (90791); One hour test administration, scoring,
interpretation and report (96118 x 3)

REASON FOR REFERRAL: Attorney Mr. X referred Mr. W for an evaluation of his decision-making
capacity.

HISTORY OF CURRENT SYMPTOMS: The symptom description and history were obtained from an
interview with Mr. W, his sister, and his cousin. Mr. W stated he was seen by a physician in Michigan last
year at his son’s urging and was diagnosed with “dementia.” Subsequently, according to the patient, his
son reportedly took control of his finances, has withdrawn approximately $28,000 from the patient’s
account, and has sold the patient’s coin collection. Mr. W does not feel the diagnosis of dementia is
correct and would like to resume control over his financial matters.

Reportedly, the incident that initiated the diagnosis of dementia occurred in 2011 when Mr. W was living
with his son Anthony. He stated he saw the silhouette of a person walking in another room in the house
and believed it was the “Boogie Man.” Several days later, he had what appeared to be a syncopal
episode (“I blacked out”) and fell while walking out to the garage. He stated he felt someone “pounding
my head and pulling me down the stairs,” and he believed this was also the “Boogie Man”. He was
reportedly taken to the ER and released; however, after this incident the patient stated his sons became
concerned with his thinking, and this eventually led to an evaluation with a physician and a diagnosis of
dementia.

Mr. W denied any other instances or auditory or visual hallucinations beyond those described above. He
was living in A State (initially with his family and then on his own), but in 20XX, moved to Another State to
live with his sister and brother-in-law. According to his sister and his cousin, the patient has not
demonstrated any problems with memory or other areas of thinking. He stopped driving two years ago at
the insistence of his son, but he remains independent in other activities of daily living, including managing
his own medications, self-care, and occasional household chores. He also enjoys playing cards and
playing electronic poker, and there has been no reported decline in his ability in these areas.

Summary of Previous Investigations and Findings: No previous neuropsychological evaluations.

PAST MEDICAL, NEUROLOGICAL, PSYCHIATRIC, SUBSTANCE USE HISTORY: (Inclusive review of
symptoms and disorders; only positive features listed) Hypertension, hypercholesterolemia,
hypothyroidism, COPD, asthma, myocardial infarction in the past (exact date unknown), and
osteoporosis. The patient denied any neurological or psychiatric history beyond that described above. He
does not drink alcohol and quit smoking in 1940. He has no history of recreational drug use.

BIRTH, DEVELOPMENTAL, OCCUPATIONAL HISTORY: (Review of perinatal factors, early childhood
development and milestones, academic history and achievement, employment) No reported delays in
reaching developmental milestones. The patient stated he completed 6 years of formal education and
worked for the city in the sewer division for many years.

FAMILY HISTORY: (First degree relatives; only pertinent features reported) The patient’s mother
reportedly died of a stroke at age 57, and the patient’s father died in an accident when the patient was 14.
The patient has one full brother, age 81, who is reportedly in good health, and one half-brother with whom

CONFIDENTIAL

he does not have regular contact. The patient has five children (three sons and two daughters), but he
and his wife did not live together consistently at the time the children were born, so he stated he is not
sure he is the biological father of his three oldest children. He reported he currently has no ongoing
contact with any of his children.

PSYCHOSOCIAL HISTORY AND CURRENT ADAPTATION: (Current living situation, social
relationships, activities of daily living) The patient lived in A State most of his life, but moved to Another
State to be closer to his children about a year ago. He was living with his son and then Another Son until
20XX when he moved into an independent apartment. He lived alone for one year before he moved to
Another State to live with his sister and brother-in-law due to his ongoing conflicts with his son regarding
financial issues.

CURRENT EXAMINATION: Review of records; Clinical Interview; Cognitive Assessment: Wechsler Test
of Adult Reading (WTAR); Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV (WAIS-IV) (partial); Attention Tests:
WAIS-IV Digit Span, Trail Making Tests, RBANS Coding, RBANS Semantic Fluency; Language Tests:
RBANS Naming Test; Visuospatial Tests: RBANS Figure Copy and Line Orientation, Target cancellation;
Learning/Memory Tests: RBANS Word List, Story and Figure recall; Reasoning/Abstraction: WAIS-IV
Similarities

BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS:
The patient arrived on time for his appointment and was accompanied by his sister and his cousin. He
was casually dressed and neatly groomed, and his social interpersonal skills were preserved. He was
very pleasant and put forth good effort throughout the evaluation. Thought processes were logical and
goal directed, and there was no indication of hallucinations, delusions, or other psychoses. No overt
behavioral indications of a mood disturbance were observed, and a full range of affect was demonstrated.

The results of this evaluation are considered reliable and valid for interpretation.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
Based on his educational history (6th grade) and performance on the WTAR (est. FSIQ = 68) the patient’s
estimated level of premorbid functioning would be within the low-average to borderline range overall. The
remainder of the examination was interpreted with the expectation of performance at this level.

The patient was fully oriented with the exception of the city, which he did not know. He was able to give
detailed information (e.g., specific dates) of his autobiographical history, and his performance on formal
memory testing did not indicate any type of retentive memory disturbance. Although he had slight
difficulty encoding new information, there was no loss of information over time.

The patient’s speech was fluent with normal articulation, and rate and comprehension of auditory
information was intact. No significant impairments were noted in naming, reading, or writing. Visuospatial
abilities were an area of relative weakness, but there was no indication of hemispatial neglect or
inattention, and object recognition was preserved. It is likely his poor performance on the RBANS Figure
Copy and Line Orientation was due to difficulties in higher level visuospatial processing and executive
functions. Abstract verbal reasoning was within normal parameters.

Immediate attention span was intact, and he performed within normal limits on most tests of sustained
attention. His score on the RBANS coding subtest, which also has a visuospatial and motor component,
was the only area that was below expectation.

TESTING SUMMARY:

09/10/2011

Normative data

Current Level*

PREMORBID FUNCTIONING
WTAR 10/50 SS = 68 Borderline/Low

DEMENTIA SCREENING
MMSE 25/30 — Within Normal Limits

CONFIDENTIAL

ATTENTION

WAIS-IV Digit Span 5 F, 5 B ss = 9 Average
RBANS Coding 20/89 ss = 4 Borderline/Low
Trail Making Test Part A 49” T = 53 Average
Trail Making Test Part B 115” T = 62 High Average

LANGUAGE
RBANS Naming 10/10 >75th% High Average
RBANS Semantic Fluency 16 words/min ss = 9 Average

VISUOSPATIAL
RBANS Figure Copy 10/20 ss = 2 Extremely Low
RBANS Line Orientation 4/20 <2nd% Extremely Low

MEMORY
RBANS Word List

Learning Trials 17/40 ss = 6 Low Average
Delayed Recall 0/10 3-9th% Borderline
Recognition 19/20 26-50th Average

RBANS Story
Learning Trials 8/24 ss = 4 Borderline/Low
Delayed Recall 6/12 ss = 8 Average

RBANS Figure Recall 6/20 ss = 6 Low Average
EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS

WAIS-IV Similarities — ss = 5 Borderline

REPEATABLE BATTERY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL STATUS*:

Index Scores Mean = 100; std = 15 Current Level
Immediate Memory SS = 78 Borderline
Visuospatial/Constructions SS = 53 Extremely Low
Language SS = 99 Average
Attention SS = 68 Borderline/Low
Delayed Memory SS = 90 Average

*80-89 year-old norms used because 90 year-old-norms are not available

SUMMARY AND IMPRESSION:

1. Neurocognitive Profile: The profile on testing is one of mild weaknesses in some aspects of complex
attention/working memory and executive functions within the context of an overall low average to
borderline level of general intellectual functioning. Although his primary visuospatial abilities are intact, he
demonstrated a weakness on more complex visuospatial processing, most likely due to the executive
aspects of these tasks. He had some difficulty initially encoding lengthy (e.g., story) information, but
delayed recall and recognition were generally intact, and there is no indication of a primary retentive
memory disturbance. The patient did not endorse any symptoms consistent with a mood disturbance and
there was no indication of hallucinations, delusions, or other psychoses observed during the interview and
examination.

2. Diagnostic Formulation: The profile on testing is consistent with a mild dysfunction in frontal networks.
In this case, the differential diagnosis is extensive and includes potential cerebrovascular disease (given
his risk factors and history of at least one syncopal episode) and toxic/metabolic abnormalities (e.g.,
thyroid abnormalities). The etiology of his syncopal episode and confusion is impossible to determine in
the absence of medical records from that time, but his hallucinations during that time are consistent with
his religious and spiritual beliefs. In addition, there have been no further instances or evidence of
hallucinations or other psychoses to suggest this is an ongoing/active problem. Although the possibility
can never be fully excluded in this age group, the absence of retentive memory impairment argues

CONFIDENTIAL

strongly against the likelihood that Alzheimer’s disease is the primary, or a significant cause of, his
current cognitive symptoms.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Mr. W’s cognitive weaknesses are not sufficient to render him incapable of making his own
decisions regarding his finances and/or health care, and therefore, guardianship is not
appropriate.

2. Mr. W should continue to refrain from operating a motor vehicle or engaging in any potentially

dangerous activities (such as the use of heat generating appliances or power tools) due to his
visuospatial and attentional weaknesses.

3. Mr. W was encouraged to follow-up with his primary care physician to a) ensure that all treatable

causes of cognitive impairment are well-controlled (e.g., thyroid, blood pressure, diabetes, etc.),
and b) review and update his medications. He may also want to discuss with his doctor whether a
neurological work-up (including some form of brain imaging) would be helpful to further clarify the
etiology of his current cognitive symptoms

4. A follow-up evaluation can be conducted in the future if there is evidence of symptom change or

progression.

__________________________, Ph.D., ABPP-CN
Board Certified Neuropsychologist
Licensed Clinical Psychologist

cc: Mr. X, Attorney at Law

Dr. Diaz
Mr. W

CONFIDENTIAL

SAMP

LE

REPOR

T

Case descriptions do not accompany MMPI-2-RF reports, but are provided here as background information. The
following report was generated from Q-global™, Pearson’s web-based scoring and reporting application, using Mr. M.’s
responses to the MMPI-2-RF. Additional MMPI-2-RF sample reports, product offerings, training opportunities, and
resources can be found at PearsonClinical.com/mmpi2rf.

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s). All rights reserved. Q-global, Always Learning, Pearson, design for Psi, and PsychCorp are atrademarks, in the U.S. and/or other countries, of Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s).
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form and MMPI-2-RF are registered trademarks of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 8795-A 01/1

4

Case Description: Mr. M — Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal

Score Report

Mr. M, a 21-year-old, single male, was evaluated pursuant to a court order in connection with a not-guilty-
by-reason-of-insanity plea. A patrol officer had observed Mr. M driving erratically, weaving in and out of
traffic on a county highway. The officer followed the defendant in a marked police cruiser and eventually
activated the vehicle’s lights and siren. Rather than pull over, Mr. M accelerated his driving speed and
a several-mile chase ensued. Other cruisers were called in, and Mr. M, who had pulled off the highway
and was driving on back roads, was surrounded. He then drove straight at the patrol officer’s vehicle and
rammed it several times, managing to escape, and continued driving until his vehicle ran out of fuel. At
that point he was apprehended, arrested, and charged with aggravated assault of a police officer. He was
taken to a hospital to clean up minor wounds and from there Mr. M was transported to the county jail.

In his report, the arresting officer wrote that Mr. M appeared to be terrified, repeatedly shouting “Don’t
shoot me, don’t kill me” even after he was handcuffed and sitting in the back of a cruiser. Records
forwarded by the hospital where Mr. M was treated for his wounds described him as initially agitated,
paranoid, and incoherent. Hospital staff suspected that Mr. M may have been under the influence of drugs
or alcohol. However, the results of a toxicology screen were negative. Mr. M was given a sedative and
eventually calmed down and was transported to the jail where he was assessed by a mental health worker.
The worker’s notes indicated that Mr. M claimed that he had been chased by a gang that was hired to
kill him. He was placed in the jail’s mental health unit and evaluated later that day by a psychiatrist who
diagnosed Mr. M with “Atypical Psychosis” and recommended that he be observed for a few days to help
determine an appropriate diagnosis and course of treatment.

At his arraignment, a court-appointed attorney entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of
insanity on behalf of Mr. M, who was referred by the Court for an evaluation of his mental condition at the
time of the alleged offense. Interviews were conducted with Mr. M’s parents who reported that the he had
graduated from high school two years prior to his arrest and had continued to reside with them. He was
employed at a local grocery store and had been functioning normally until approximately four months prior

http://www.pearsonclinical.com/psychology/products/100000631/minnesota-multiphasic-personality-inventory-2-rf-mmpi-2-rf.html

SAMPLE REPORT

Case Description (continued): Mr. M — Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal
Score Report

to his arrest. His parents reported that Mr. M, an amature musician, became “obsessed” with the idea that
a nationally known musical group had stolen his material. He wrote to members of the group, posted about
the “theft” on-line, and called local radio stations to “out the thieves.” He began to isolate socially, broke up
with his girlfriend, refusing to tell her or his family why he did so, and spent most of the time he was not at
work playing guitar in the basement of his parents’ home. His parents described him as being increasingly
preoccupied, frequently looking out at the street and telling them that the musical group had hired a local
gang to “take him out.”

When interviewed at the jail, Mr. M. told a similar story, explaining that he was driving home from work
when he noticed that he was being followed. He believed that the vehicle following him was driven by gang
members who had been hired to kill him and tried to “outrun them”. When he saw the lights and heard the
siren he concluded that the gang had stolen a police cruiser and he continued to try to escape. He explained
that he was trying to drive home, which was indeed the direction he was heading when he ran out of fuel.
When surrounded by several cruisers he rammed the one that had been following him Interviews with
Mr. M’s manager at work and documents forwarded by his attorney corroborated information provided by
Mr. M and his parents.

Score Report

MMPI-2-RF®

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form®

Yossef S. Ben-Porath, PhD, & Auke Tellegen, PhD

ID Number: Mr. M

Age: 2

1

Gender: Male

Marital Status: Not reported

Years of Education: Not reported

Date Assessed: 1/13/14

Copyright © 2008, 2011, 2012 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Distributed exclusively under license from the University of Minnesota by NCS Pearson, Inc. Portions reproduced from the MMPI-2-RF test
booklet. Copyright © 2008 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Portions excerpted from the MMPI-2-RF Manual
for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation. Copyright © 2008, 2011 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Used by permission of the University of Minnesota Press.

MMPI-2-RF, the MMPI-2-RF logo, and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form are registered trademarks of
the University of Minnesota. Pearson, the PSI logo, and PsychCorp are trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries of Pearson Education,
Inc., or its affiliate(s).

TRADE SECRET INFORMATION
Not for release under HIPAA or other data disclosure laws that exempt trade secrets from disclosure.

[ 2.2 / 1 / QG ]

SA
MP

LE

MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales

2

0

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

K-rL-rFBS-rFsFp-rF-rTRIN-rVRIN-r

Raw Score:

Response %:

VRIN-r
TRIN-r
F-r
Fp-r

Variable Response Inconsistency
True Response Inconsistency
Infrequent Responses
Infrequent Psychopathology Responses

7

6

8

100

Fs
FBS-r

RBS

Infrequent Somatic Responses
Symptom Validity
Response Bias Scale

3

6

6

100

3
68

100

7
74

100

1

2

57

100

18
83

100

10

86

100

14
88

100

1

20

110

Cannot Say (Raw): 1

T Score: T

41Percent True (of items answered): %

64597

5

T
T

54 52 60 55

63

10 20152810 16 121

9

T

Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men), N = 551

—

— —

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+

( ):

( ):

_

93 70826174 9989

Percent scoring at or
below test taker:

L-r
K-r

Uncommon Virtues
Adjustment Validity

RBS

8

52

100

46

11

7392

The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a “—“; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.

ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report
1/13/14, Page 2

SA
MP
LE

MMPI-2-RF Higher-Order (H-O) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales

20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30

RC9RC8RC7RC6RC4RC3RC2RC1RCdBXDTHDEID

Raw Score:

T Score:

Response %:

EID
THD
BXD

Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction
Thought Dysfunction
Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction

20

64

100

RCd
RC1
RC2
RC3
RC4

Demoralization
Somatic Complaints
Low Positive Emotions
Cynicism
Antisocial Behavior

RC6
RC7
RC8
RC9

Ideas of Persecution
Dysfunctional Negative Emotions
Aberrant Experiences
Hypomanic Activation

6

59

100
12
64
100
3

43

100
6

67

100
8

65

100
5
52
100
4
46
100
4
70
100
6

66

100
11
60
100
6
40
100

120

110

Higher-Order Restructured Clinical

59 60606162 58 6456 66 6056 52

15 15141218 14 1312 18 1614 11

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men), N = 551
Standard Dev
Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):
_
Percent scoring at or
below test taker:

61 5661971 75 2125 70 7269 14

The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a “—“; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.

ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report
1/13/14, Page 3

SA
MP
LE

MMPI-2-RF Somatic/Cognitive and Internalizing Scales

20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30

NFC ANPAXYSTW MSFBRFNUCGIC HPC HLPCOG SFD

Raw Score:
T Score:
Response %:

MLS

GIC
HPC
NUC
COG

Malaise
Gastrointestinal Complaints
Head Pain Complaints
Neurological Complaints
Cognitive Complaints

5

69

100

AXY
ANP
BRF
MSF

Anxiety
Anger Proneness
Behavior-Restricting Fears
Multiple Specific Fears

SUI

HLP
SFD
NFC
STW

Suicidal/Death Ideation
Helplessness/Hopelessness
Self-Doubt
Inefficacy
Stress/Worry

7
80
100
1

53

100
2
59
100
2

72

100
1
100
3
65
100
3
69
100
2

48

100
3
80
100
5
65
1

47

100
2
46
100
1

56

100

Somatic/Cognitive Internalizing
120

110

59 60615657 63 5755 55 6056 54 4853

14 16161316 24 1314 12 1712 13 912

Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men), N = 551
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—

— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
MLS
86
66
SUI

78 88427084 72 7686 37 8984 40 4774

Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at or
below test taker:
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a “—“; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.

ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report
1/13/14, Page 4

SA
MP
LE

MMPI-2-RF Externalizing, Interpersonal, and Interest Scales

20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30

SAV MECAESACTAGGSUBJCP FML DSFIPP SHY

Raw Score:
T Score:
Response %:

FML
IPP
SAV
SHY
DSF

Family Problems
Interpersonal Passivity
Social Avoidance
Shyness
Disaffiliativeness

2
57
100

JCP
SUB
AGG
ACT

Juvenile Conduct Problems
Substance Abuse
Aggression
Activation

AES
MEC

Aesthetic-Literary Interests
Mechanical-Physical Interests

2

49

100
4
53
100
0

37

100
0

41

100
7

62

100
4
52
100
5

55

100
0

44

100
3
52
100
2

45

100

InterpersonalExternalizing Interest
120

110

62 54525562 49 5154 55 5745

14 14131315 11 1112 14 1010

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

46 50671617 90 6965 52 3868

Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men), N = 551
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at or
below test taker:
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a “—“; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.

ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report
1/13/14, Page 5

SA
MP
LE

MMPI-2-RF PSY-5 Scales

20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30

INTR-rNEGE-rDISC-rPSYC-rAGGR-r

Raw Score:
T Score:
Response %:

AGGR-r
PSYC-r
DISC-r
NEGE-r
INTR-r

Aggressiveness-Revised
Psychoticism-Revised
Disconstraint-Revised
Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism-Revised
Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality-Revised

4

39

100
11
64
100
9
56
100
4
44
100
5
63
100
120
110

53 55586061

11 12131118

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men), N = 551
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at or
below test taker:

9 7755865

The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a “—“; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.

ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report
1/13/14, Page 6

SA
MP
LE

MMPI-2-RF T SCORES (BY DOMAIN)

PROTOCOL VALIDITY

SUBSTANTIVE SCALES

*The test taker provided scorable responses to less than 90% of the items scored on this scale. See the relevant profile page for the specific percentage.

Note. This information is provided to facilitate interpretation following the recommended structure for MMPI-2-RF interpretation in Chapter 5 of the
MMPI-2-RF Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation, which provides details in the text and an outline in Table 5-1.

Content Non-Responsiveness 1 68 57 T
CNS VRIN-r TRIN-r

Over-Reporting 74 68 66 83 88
F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS

Under-Reporting 86 52
L-r K-r

Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction 59 69 72 59 53 80
RC1 MLS GIC HPC NUC COG

Emotional Dysfunction 64 64 66 69 65 48
EID RCd SUI HLP SFD NFC

65 64
RC2 INTR-r

60 65* 80 47 56 46 56
RC7 STW AXY ANP BRF MSF NEGE-r

Thought Dysfunction 67 70
THD RC6

66
RC8

63
PSYC-r

Behavioral Dysfunction 43 52 57 41
BXD RC4 JCP SUB

40 37 53 39 44
RC9 AGG ACT AGGR-r DISC-r

Interpersonal Functioning 49 46 62 55 52 44
FML RC3 IPP SAV SHY DSF

Interests 45 52
AES MEC

ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report
1/13/14, Page 7

SA
MP
LE

ITEM-LEVEL INFORMATION

Unscorable Responses

Following is a list of items to which the test taker did not provide scorable responses. Unanswered or
double answered (both True and False) items are unscorable. The scales on which the items appear are
in parentheses following the item content.

224. Item Content Omitted. (STW)

Critical Responses

Seven MMPI-2-RF scales–Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI), Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP), Anxiety
(AXY), Ideas of Persecution (RC6), Aberrant Experiences (RC8), Substance Abuse (SUB), and
Aggression (AGG)–have been designated by the test authors as having critical item content that may
require immediate attention and follow-up. Items answered by the individual in the keyed direction
(True or False) on a critical scale are listed below if his T score on that scale is 65 or higher. The
percentage of the MMPI-2-RF normative sample (NS) and of the Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men)
comparison group (CG) that answered each item in the keyed direction are provided in parentheses
following the item content.

Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI, T Score = 66)

334. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 13.5%, CG 26.1%)

Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP, T Score = 69)

169. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 4.3%, CG 26.0%)
214. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 10.4%, CG 24.3%)
336. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 38.0%, CG 27.4%)

Anxiety (AXY, T Score = 80)

228. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 17.3%, CG 31.8%)
275. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 5.0%, CG 28.1%)
289. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 12.7%, CG 26.1%)

Ideas of Persecution (RC6, T Score = 70)

110. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 9.9%, CG 36.3%)
168. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 2.8%, CG 7.6%)
287. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 3.1%, CG 16.7%)
310. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 3.0%, CG 18.3%)

ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report
1/13/14, Page 8

Special Note:
The content of the test items
is included in the actual reports.
To protect the integrity of the test,
the item content does not appear
in this sample report.

ITEMS
NOT

SHOWN

SA
MP
LE

Aberrant Experiences (RC8, T Score = 66)

32. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 21.1%, CG 57.4%)
159. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 6.0%, CG 33.8%)
179. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 12.6%, CG 26.9%)
199. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 12.1%, CG 23.8%)
257. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 12.4%, CG 32.1%)
311. Item Content Omitted. (True; NS 32.4%, CG 32.3%)

End of Report

This and previous pages of this report contain trade secrets and are not to be released in response to
requests under HIPAA (or any other data disclosure law that exempts trade secret information from
release). Further, release in response to litigation discovery demands should be made only in accordance
with your profession’s ethical guidelines and under an appropriate protective order.

ID: Mr. MMMPI-2-RF® Score Report
1/13/14, Page 9

Special Note:
The content of the test items
is included in the actual reports.
To protect the integrity of the test,
the item content does not appear
in this sample report.
ITEMS
NOT
SHOWN
SA
MP
LE

SAMP

LE

REPORT

Case descriptions do not accompany MMPI-2-RF reports, but are provided here as background information. The
following report was generated from Q-global™, Pearson’s web-based scoring and reporting application, using Ms. X.’s
responses to the MMPI-2-RF. Additional MMPI-2-RF sample reports, product offerings, training opportunities, and
resources can be found at PearsonClinical.com/mmpi2rf.

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s). All rights reserved. Q-global, Always Learning, Pearson, design for Psi, and PsychCorp are atrademarks, in the U.S. and/or other countries, of Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s).
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form and MMPI-2-RF are registered trademarks of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 8795-A 01/

1

4

Case Description: Ms. X — Forensic, Neuropsychological

Score Report

Ms. X is a 47-year-old, separated woman who underwent a forensic neuropsychological evaluation in
connection with a personal injury lawsuit she had filed. The litigation involved a motor vehicle accident
that occurred several months prior to the evaluation. According to Ms. X she was cut off by another vehicle
while driving, and, unable to avoid a collision, she broadsided the other car. She recalls striking her head
against a window, but was uncertain whether she lost consciousness. She was transported to a local hospital
where she remained hospitalized for several days. Ms. X was discharged with diagnoses of a severe neck
sprain, a contusion resulting from restraint by her seatbelt, a bladder infection, torn ligaments in her left
leg, and nerve damage in her left foot.

Medical records indicated that the attending paramedic who first evaluated Ms. X described her mental
status as normal. At the hospital her Glascow Coma Scale score was 15/15. She is described in these
records as presenting with a series of vaguely related symptoms and complaints that were investigated
over the course of her hospitalization. Medical imaging studies did not reveal any abnormalities. Following
discharge, after a series of complaints Ms. X was deemed to be incapable of caring for her own basic needs
and found eligible to receive 24-hour assistance with basic living skills.

Ms. X reported having sustained another injury ten years prior to the recent motor vehicle accident when
she fell into a ditch. According to her report a vertebrae fracture was diagnosed and treated unsuccessfully
several years after this accident. She reported that prior to the first accident she had been employed as a
paraprofessional, but she became disabled by the accident, and had not worked since this event. A review
of medical records indicated that a number of evaluators concluded that Ms. X’s symptoms and complaints
following the initial accident could not be explained medically.

Ms. X’s main complaint at the time of the current evaluation involved speech problems. Specifically, she
complained that her speech was slowed and dysfluent, and that it required considerable effort for her to
be able to speak. She also complained of diffuse pain with an unusual distribution, for which she was

http://www.pearsonclinical.com/psychology/products/100000631/minnesota-multiphasic-personality-inventory-2-rf-mmpi-2-rf.html

SAMPLE REPORT

Case Description (continued): Ms. X — Forensic, Neuropsychological
Score Report

receiving very high doses of opiate-based medication. Ms. X claimed that since the accident she had lost
her ability to perform simple math and was experiencing significant memory problems. She also reported
experiencing mood swings and sleep difficulties.

Ms. X was referred for an independent neuropsychological evaluation by attorneys for the insurance
company that was handling her case. The evaluating neuropsychologist observed that she presented with
very atypical stuttering speech and other pseudoneurologic symptoms. Effort tests were administered as
part of the neuropsychological test battery, and the results indicated that Ms. X exerted adequate effort.
Cognitive testing indicated intact functioning in most areas likely to be affected by a brain injury, with
some problems most likely due to extensive medication use.

Score Report

MMPI-2-RF®

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form®

Yossef S. Ben-Porath, PhD, & Auke Tellegen, PhD

ID Number: Ms. X

Age:

4

7

Gender: Female

Marital Status: Separated

Years of Education:

1

8

Date Assessed: 1/13/14

Copyright © 2008, 2011, 2012 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Distributed exclusively under license from the University of Minnesota by NCS Pearson, Inc. Portions reproduced from the MMPI-2-RF test
booklet. Copyright © 2008 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Portions excerpted from the MMPI-2-RF Manual
for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation. Copyright © 2008, 2011 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Used by permission of the University of Minnesota Press.

MMPI-2-RF, the MMPI-2-RF logo, and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form are registered trademarks of
the University of Minnesota. Pearson, the PSI logo, and PsychCorp are trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries of Pearson Education,
Inc., or its affiliate(s).

TRADE SECRET INFORMATION
Not for release under HIPAA or other data disclosure laws that exempt trade secrets from disclosure.

[ 2.2 / 1 / QG ]

SA
MP

LE

MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales

2

0

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

K-rL-rFBS-rFsFp-rF-rTRIN-rVRIN-r

Raw Score:

Response %:

VRIN-r
TRIN-r
F-r
Fp-r

Variable Response Inconsistency
True Response Inconsistency
Infrequent Responses
Infrequent Psychopathology Responses

6
6

3

100

Fs
FBS-r

RBS

Infrequent Somatic Responses
Symptom Validity
Response Bias Scale

6
9

1

100

1

51

100

9

83

100

10

57

100

17
80

100

2

47

100

16
97

100

1

20

110

Cannot Say (Raw): 0

T Score:

F

29Percent True (of items answered): %

6854

72

F
F

51 52 78 58

78

9 21121810 15 1217

F

Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Neuropsychological Examination Litigant/Claimant (Women), N = 578

—

— —

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Standard Dev

Mean Score

1 SD+

( ):

( ):

_

92 88627876 2688

Percent scoring at or
below test taker:

L-r
K-r

Uncommon Virtues
Adjustment Validity

RBS

7

48

100
47

10
6257

The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a “—“; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.

ID: Ms. XMMPI-2-RF® Score Report
1/13/14, Page 2

SA
MP
LE

MMPI-2-RF Higher-Order (H-O) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales

20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30

RC9RC8RC7RC6RC4RC3RC2RC1RCdBXDTHDEID

Raw Score:

T Score:

Response %:

EID
THD
BXD

Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction
Thought Dysfunction
Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction

22

66

100

RCd
RC1
RC2
RC3
RC4

Demoralization
Somatic Complaints
Low Positive Emotions
Cynicism
Antisocial Behavior

RC6
RC7
RC8
RC9

Ideas of Persecution
Dysfunctional Negative Emotions
Aberrant Experiences
Hypomanic Activation

18

86

100
14

67

100
2
40
100
1
48
100
10

73

100
3

46

100
0

34

100
0

43

100
1
47
100
3

44

100
4

36

100

120

110

Higher-Order Restructured Clinical

60 75614354 63 4449 54 5654 44

12 1311812 13 811 12 1212 9

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Neuropsychological Examination Litigant/Claimant (Women), N = 578
Standard Dev
Mean Score

1 SD+( ):

( ):
_
Percent scoring at or
below test taker:

70 79724740 78 717 40 3322 18

The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a “—“; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.

ID: Ms. XMMPI-2-RF® Score Report
1/13/14, Page 3

SA
MP
LE

MMPI-2-RF Somatic/Cognitive and Internalizing Scales

20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30

NFC ANPAXYSTW MSFBRFNUCGIC HPC HLPCOG SFD

Raw Score:
T Score:
Response %:

MLS
GIC
HPC
NUC
COG

Malaise
Gastrointestinal Complaints
Head Pain Complaints
Neurological Complaints
Cognitive Complaints

8

87

100

AXY
ANP
BRF
MSF

Anxiety
Anger Proneness
Behavior-Restricting Fears
Multiple Specific Fears

SUI
HLP
SFD
NFC
STW

Suicidal/Death Ideation
Helplessness/Hopelessness
Self-Doubt
Inefficacy
Stress/Worry

7
80
100
7
86
100
4
72
100
1

64

100
0

4

5

100
3

65

100
1

52

100
2
48
100
1

59

100
4
57
100
2
51
100
1

42

100
2

63

100

Somatic/Cognitive Internalizing
120

110

73 73747264 53 5555 55 6255 55 55

56

10 13141117 16 1113 11 1711 13 1113

Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Neuropsychological Examination Litigant/Claimant (Women), N = 578
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—

— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

MLS SUI

100 77855159 76 8760 36 5974 49 1281

Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at or
below test taker:
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a “—“; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.

ID: Ms. XMMPI-2-RF® Score Report
1/13/14, Page 4

SA
MP
LE

MMPI-2-RF Externalizing, Interpersonal, and Interest Scales

20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30

SAV MECAESACTAGGSUBJCP FML DSFIPP SHY

Raw Score:
T Score:
Response %:

FML
IPP
SAV
SHY
DSF

Family Problems
Interpersonal Passivity
Social Avoidance
Shyness
Disaffiliativeness

0
40
100

JCP
SUB
AGG
ACT

Juvenile Conduct Problems
Substance Abuse
Aggression
Activation

AES
MEC

Aesthetic-Literary Interests
Mechanical-Physical Interests

2

49

100
0

33

100
1
45
100
0

41

100
7

62

100
5
57
100
9

75

100
3
78
100
1
43
100
4
56
100

InterpersonalExternalizing Interest
120

110

46 49494844 51 4955 52 4346

8 111196 10 912 12 610

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

62 6265276 91 8994 98 7188

Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Neuropsychological Examination Litigant/Claimant (Women), N = 578
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at or
below test taker:
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a “—“; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.

ID: Ms. XMMPI-2-RF® Score Report
1/13/14, Page 5

SA
MP
LE

MMPI-2-RF PSY-5 Scales

20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30

INTR-rNEGE-rDISC-rPSYC-rAGGR-r

Raw Score:
T Score:
Response %:

AGGR-r
PSYC-r
DISC-r
NEGE-r
INTR-r

Aggressiveness-Revised
Psychoticism-Revised
Disconstraint-Revised
Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism-Revised
Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality-Revised

5
41
100

15

77

100

11

62
100
3
41
100
2
52
100
120
110

48 59574154

8 1413712

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Comparison Group Data: Forensic, Neuropsychological Examination Litigant/Claimant (Women), N = 578
Standard Dev
Mean Score
1 SD+( ):
( ):
_
Percent scoring at or
below test taker:

21 88716454

The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a “—“; MMPI-2-RF T scores are non-gendered.

ID: Ms. XMMPI-2-RF® Score Report
1/13/14, Page 6

SA
MP
LE

MMPI-2-RF T SCORES (BY DOMAIN)

PROTOCOL VALIDITY

SUBSTANTIVE SCALES

Note. This information is provided to facilitate interpretation following the recommended structure for MMPI-2-RF interpretation in Chapter 5 of the
MMPI-2-RF Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation, which provides details in the text and an outline in Table 5-1.

Content Non-Responsiveness 0 63 57 F
CNS VRIN-r TRIN-r

Over-Reporting 83 51 91 80 97
F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS

Under-Reporting 47 48
L-r K-r

Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction 86 87 64 72 86 80
RC1 MLS GIC HPC NUC COG

Emotional Dysfunction 66 67 45 52 65 48
EID RCd SUI HLP SFD NFC

73 77
RC2 INTR-r

44 57 59 51 63 42 62
RC7 STW AXY ANP BRF MSF NEGE-r

Thought Dysfunction 48 43
THD RC6

47
RC8

52
PSYC-r

Behavioral Dysfunction 40 46 40 41
BXD RC4 JCP SUB

36 45 33 41 41
RC9 AGG ACT AGGR-r DISC-r

Interpersonal Functioning 49 34 62 75 57 78
FML RC3 IPP SAV SHY DSF

Interests 56 43
AES MEC

ID: Ms. XMMPI-2-RF® Score Report
1/13/14, Page 7

SA
MP
LE

ITEM-LEVEL INFORMATION

Unscorable Responses

The test taker produced scorable responses to all the MMPI-2-RF items.

Critical Responses

Seven MMPI-2-RF scales–Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI), Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP), Anxiety
(AXY), Ideas of Persecution (RC6), Aberrant Experiences (RC8), Substance Abuse (SUB), and
Aggression (AGG)–have been designated by the test authors as having critical item content that may
require immediate attention and follow-up. Items answered by the individual in the keyed direction
(True or False) on a critical scale are listed below if her T score on that scale is 65 or higher.

The test taker has not produced an elevated T score (> 65) on any of these scales.

End of Report

This and previous pages of this report contain trade secrets and are not to be released in response to
requests under HIPAA (or any other data disclosure law that exempts trade secret information from
release). Further, release in response to litigation discovery demands should be made only in accordance
with your profession’s ethical guidelines and under an appropriate protective order.

ID: Ms. XMMPI-2-RF® Score Report
1/13/14, Page 8

SA
MP
LE